Today Show investigation on Frozen Meals...the study is alar

Positively_Me

I was watching the "Today show" on NBC this morning and they did a study investigation on Frozen meal....the study is very alarming to those who eat the meals and trying to lose weight..

"Can you really believe fat and calorie numbers on food labels? NBC’s Jeff Rossen investigates the truth behind “low-fat” and “low-calorie” meals."

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/37726086#37726086

shellshalla

bump

jrich1

From what I read on FB, the Lean Cuisines I eat are under rated, I will watch video tonight

Positively_Me

From what I read on FB, the Lean Cuisines I eat are under rated, I will watch video tonight

Yes, Lean Cuisine and Healthy Choice is a little under estimated, but Smart Ones were three times the amount of calories and fat label on the box.

skygoddess86

From what I read on FB, the Lean Cuisines I eat are under rated, I will watch video tonight

Yes, Lean Cuisine and Healthy Choice is a little under estimated, but Smart Ones were three times the amount of calories and fat label on the box.

Really!? That sucks!!!

RhondaCrombie

Holy cow! That's AWFUL! I am not a big fan of them, but I do love the Lean Cuisine BBQ Pizza. *sigh*

whittrusty

WHAT??? THOSE LIARS!!

antiadipose

my mom just ate the sweet and sour chicken one last night!!!!!!!

im alllll for home-cooked meals. even if i make lasagna with meat and cheese it will still be better than anything out there!

delilahthegoddess

OMG! That is shocking! I eat packaged meals on occasion, but had no idea how inaccurate there calories were! Makes you want to only eat homemade meals.

indybrown

Yes, I saw the same report this morning and have heard similar reports in the past but with varying information about the different brands and the calories. The guy at the end said it's just an "average" of calories for the meals because it can differ on the portions and how much gets put into the tray before they ship it out. But you're right, the deal with the Smart Ones meal, where the fat content was up 350% over what it states on the box is a HUGE difference...somehow that just doesn't seem right.

We only usually only eat Lean Cuisine anyway and in limited quantities...usually whenever I don't have the time in the morning to plan/fix a lunch and so this now convinces me that eating these in limited quantities is the right way to go.

debwilson

I have been eating these darn Lean Cuisine meals since April!! And what is showing on the website I am on right now as I write this a Lean Cuisine Ad!!

lilchino4af

Work blocks streaming videos so I'll have to watch at home later tonight. I used to eat frozen meals in college, but have since gotten away from it; some because they taste too salty!

TropicalKitty

If it's so bad for the packaged stuff that's portioned consistently, I can't imagine how far off restaurants must be!

Sheesh! No wonder we've made ourselves so overweight. We can't trust anything we get, even if we do our best to read labels and all like we're supposed to.

KendalBeee

bump for later...


can't see video at work

andygirl

bump

rcatr

I have occasionally eaten a frozen Amy's meal here and there but at the end of the day, I know that to truly control calories I have to cook everything myself and measure everything out and EVEN THEN, My estimates might be off by a little bit...ya know?

And as for this expose, they throw those percentages at you to put the fear of god in you ...350% higher than the LABEL!!! AH!!! well...350% higher than that label is 7g of fat versus the 2g on the label. which isn't bad for one meal if that's all your'e having, don't you think. Yeah..the LIE is what sucks...but just some perspective. If the 350% increase were on a Hungry Man meal...then we'd have some real problems.

mapnerd2005

This is not a sound study as the "investgators" only tested one sample of each food. If they had tested many samples of each and averaged the results, they would have come up with numbers much closer to those on the box. And it's not just diet foods that have "averaged" nutritional labels. It's ALL prepackaged food. Repeat this test by sampling products selected at random from the supermarket and it would likely reveal the same results. You wouldn't seriously expect every apple in the produce section to have exactly the same amount of calories and sugar - even those that are of identical weight - so why would you expect frozen entrees to do so? Even food that is measured out in precise amounts will have varying nutritional values depending on the seasonality of produce, the body fat percentage of the animal from which the meat came, and even the amount of time the food spent in the production phase. Yes, keep reading the nutritional labels, because sometimes it will be above and sometimes it will be below, but it will eventually average out. Don't let the results of this "study" be an excuse for why you are not losing weight. If you are running a 1000 calories deficit 20% of 200 calories is not going to make too much of a difference, especially if the next day your meal is overestimated by the same amount. To be on the safe side, underestimate the calories you burn from exercise and overestimate the amount of calories you consume by about 5%. That way you'll have a little leeway everyday to make up for the "averages" problem of food nutrition labels.

antiadipose

oh man TropicalKitty got me thinking!!! i wonder how far off restaurants are~!!!!
chefs dont mesure food out! they just make things delicious.. scaryyyy

RedneckWmn

Bump for later!

rcatr

This is not a sound study as the "investgators" only tested one sample of each food. If they had tested many samples of each and averaged the results, they would have come up with numbers much closer to those on the box. And it's not just diet foods that have "averaged" nutritional labels. It's ALL prepackaged food. Repeat this test by sampling products selected at random from the supermarket and it would likely reveal the same results. You wouldn't seriously expect every apple in the produce section to have exactly the same amount of calories and sugar - even those that are of identical weight - so why would you expect frozen entrees to do so? Even food that is measured out in precise amounts will have varying nutritional values depending on the seasonality of produce, the body fat percentage of the animal from which the meat came, and even the amount of time the food spent in the production phase. Yes, keep reading the nutritional labels, because sometimes it will be above and sometimes it will be below, but it will eventually average out. Don't let the results of this "study" be an excuse for why you are not losing weight. If you are running a 1000 calories deficit 20% of 200 calories is not going to make too much of a difference, especially if the next day your meal is overestimated by the same amount. To be on the safe side, underestimate the calories you burn from exercise and overestimate the amount of calories you consume by about 5%. That way you'll have a little leeway everyday to make up for the "averages" problem of food nutrition labels.

Agree with everything you said. I always underestimate my calories burned. I don't trust what an elliptical machine or treadmill tells me. always lowball it

lessertess

This is not a sound study as the "investgators" only tested one sample of each food. If they had tested many samples of each and averaged the results, they would have come up with numbers much closer to those on the box. And it's not just diet foods that have "averaged" nutritional labels. It's ALL prepackaged food. Repeat this test by sampling products selected at random from the supermarket and it would likely reveal the same results. You wouldn't seriously expect every apple in the produce section to have exactly the same amount of calories and sugar - even those that are of identical weight - so why would you expect frozen entrees to do so? Even food that is measured out in precise amounts will have varying nutritional values depending on the seasonality of produce, the body fat percentage of the animal from which the meat came, and even the amount of time the food spent in the production phase. Yes, keep reading the nutritional labels, because sometimes it will be above and sometimes it will be below, but it will eventually average out. Don't let the results of this "study" be an excuse for why you are not losing weight. If you are running a 1000 calories deficit 20% of 200 calories is not going to make too much of a difference, especially if the next day your meal is overestimated by the same amount. To be on the safe side, underestimate the calories you burn from exercise and overestimate the amount of calories you consume by about 5%. That way you'll have a little leeway everyday to make up for the "averages" problem of food nutrition labels.

I agree. You have to put the report into perspective. for the most part they saw a difference of 10% in calories. Well, in reality, if you have a 300 calorie meal and you add 10% it's just 30 calories. All of these calorie counts, even for whole foods are estimates. Taken on average over time, it would likely even out. I've seen the same report on restaurants. Same results, although much more significant on under reporting calories. Food labels are not exact, they are based on averages.

nikki_zav

They don't even talk about sodium in this investigation. It makes sense that 3 - 5% variations can occur...but 350?!?!?! Give me a break. That is just outright lying! The amount of sodium and preservatives in these meals is astounding as well. And while they don't say it here, it does nothing good for your body, especially when trying to loose weight. I know some people need the quick meal...but you are much better off to stick with fresh and homemade foods.

pressica

Wow, thanks for posting this. That's incredible

LuckyLeprechaun

:indifferent: :frown: :embarassed:

omg

i dont eat those anyway (because they are sodium bombs) but that is pretty shocking.

July24Lioness

I am not suprised and I have been saying things against pre-packaged and frozen "convenience" meals for the longest time.........



Pre-planning, home cooking is the only way to go!!!

mvl1014

Clearly some people in this thread that are trying to come across as smart are missing the entire point. *smh*

Yurippe

Clearly some people in this thread that are trying to come across as smart are missing the entire point. *smh*

What is the purpose of stating this without offering your opinion on what the actual point is?

lilmissy2

They don't even talk about sodium in this investigation. It makes sense that 3 - 5% variations can occur...but 350?!?!?! Give me a break. That is just outright lying! The amount of sodium and preservatives in these meals is astounding as well. And while they don't say it here, it does nothing good for your body, especially when trying to loose weight. I know some people need the quick meal...but you are much better off to stick with fresh and homemade foods.

I do see your point and of course I agree that fresh, homemade food is preferable if possible but... in their defence it was apparently (sorry I didn't watch it) a snapshot of the nutritional info. Think of it this way - if you make a dinner for 4 with 500g meat, 2 cups veg and 200g rice (all mixed in) how likely do you think it is that when you scoop out the dinner you will each get 125g meat, 1/2 cup veg and 50g rice? Now multiply that recipe by 1000 and how many are you getting that are exact? How far off potentially could some of them be? So I could see how such a large difference could be possible even if their recipe divided by the number of serves is equal too the actual nutrition info they post on the package.

Unfortunately it does make it very difficult for us as individuals (and calorie counters) to be watching what we are eating.

spicy618

Clearly some people in this thread that are trying to come across as smart are missing the entire point. *smh*

:huh: :indifferent: :yawn:

godblessourhome

This is not a sound study as the "investgators" only tested one sample of each food. If they had tested many samples of each and averaged the results, they would have come up with numbers much closer to those on the box. And it's not just diet foods that have "averaged" nutritional labels. It's ALL prepackaged food. Repeat this test by sampling products selected at random from the supermarket and it would likely reveal the same results. You wouldn't seriously expect every apple in the produce section to have exactly the same amount of calories and sugar - even those that are of identical weight - so why would you expect frozen entrees to do so? Even food that is measured out in precise amounts will have varying nutritional values depending on the seasonality of produce, the body fat percentage of the animal from which the meat came, and even the amount of time the food spent in the production phase. Yes, keep reading the nutritional labels, because sometimes it will be above and sometimes it will be below, but it will eventually average out. Don't let the results of this "study" be an excuse for why you are not losing weight. If you are running a 1000 calories deficit 20% of 200 calories is not going to make too much of a difference, especially if the next day your meal is overestimated by the same amount. To be on the safe side, underestimate the calories you burn from exercise and overestimate the amount of calories you consume by about 5%. That way you'll have a little leeway everyday to make up for the "averages" problem of food nutrition labels.

i agree too! but then again, i like smart people that can think for themselves.